Integrating Birds in Range Management across the Sagebrush Steppe

Landowner and resource professional survey:

A total of 145 people completed the survey. Of this, 15 were private landowners and managers, 78 were public land managers, 53 were resource professionals who assist private landowners, and 21 ‘others’.

Results:

• We reached the correct group of stakeholders – only 1.5% of the people that started the survey did not make land management decisions on land with sagebrush.
• We asked respondents to rank the top 9 considerations when making land management decisions (Table 1). Interestingly, “effect on wildlife” was # 1 for all respondents and #2 for landowners (behind “water conservation”).
• To tease apart what attributes of vegetation and wildlife (from previous question) are important we asked respondents to rank the vegetation attributes (Table 2).
• 86.9% of respondents said they would like to learn more about sagebrush dependent birds and their habitat needs. For the 9% that answered “depends” they listed “available time,” “training location/proximity,” and “if there’s information about other species besides Greater Sage-grouse” as deciding factors.
• 92.4% of respondents said they would consider including sage dependent bird habitat needs into land management decisions if they knew the action(s) would increase population levels of at-risk species.
• Respondents were “interested” or “very interested” in attending a 1-day (74.3%) or 2-day (62.7%) training session that covered the topics listed in the questions above.
• When asked what they would specifically like the training sessions to cover the three responses that rose to the top were:

1. How different bird species respond to land management actions
2. Which management actions benefit Sage-grouse AND other bird species
3. Prioritizing areas on the landscape to implement management actions

• Respondents said the best months to hold the trainings were February and March

 Results from the survey helped us build the curriculum for our training sessions and helped develop the structure for the DST.

“Sagebrush Dependent Birds and Management Actions” Trainings:

Four one-day workshops were completed in Craig, CO, Rawlins & Gillette, WY, and Lewistown, MT (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory presents). The workshops accomplished the following for participants:

• Increased awareness for Sagebrush Obligate Songbirds, identification and habitat needs,
• Introduced, and solicited feedback on a prototype DST which will help predict outcomes of habitat enhancement and restoration on songbird populations, and
• Introduced information to influence future management decisions for multiple bird species. 

Bird Conservancy presented to almost 130 people from BLM (27.5%), NRCS (15.8%), state natural resource agencies (15.7%), non-profits (7.2%), Energy corporations (6.4%), USFWS (5.9%), US Forest Service (FS) (5.3%), private consultants (5.3%), University (student and employee; 4.9%), Conservation Districts (3%), and a handful of landowners. We gave an overview of Bird Conservancy’s monitoring program (Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions) and how that data is used to build bird-habitat relationship models. We discussed the ecology of birds and how our bird-habitat relationship models are correlated with different species. We covered how to identify each in the field and gave an informational presentation on Bird Conservancy’s Avian Data Center. We concluded the workshops with an overview of the development of the DST. We presented on what information is included in it, how it works, and what information it gives a user. This resulted a group conversation in which workshop participants provided constructive criticism about the tool. They discussed with each other why aspects of the tool did and didn’t work or make sense. In addition, we provided surveys for them to answer specific questions related to the tool. For example, if we have to put a habitat variable into different percentage bins, what numbers make sense. We collected feedback about what would make the DST most beneficial and functional in the landscapes where these partners work which has been incorporated into the tool. We consider this an accomplishment because their feedback is allowing us to incorporate real concerns into our DST.

Participants also evaluated the workshops and the usefulness of the information (Table 3). Overall the workshops scored a 3.91 out of 5.0 for the information being useful to the participants. Individual topic scores were greatest for avian ecology and ID (4.41 / 5.0) which indicates resource professionals are interested in learning more about sagebrush obligate bird species. Topic scores were lowest for the DST overview and discussion (3.2 / 5.0). This actually was as expected due to these workshop sections being focused more on their feedback on the DST to us. In some verbal conversations after the workshops as well as written comments on the evaluation, many of the participants were very appreciative of us getting their feedback for the development of the DST – all expressed how important that would be for building a tool that will work well and be well-used.

Webinar:

In January of 2016, Bird Conservancy  conducted an on-line webinar “Sagebrush Bird ID & Habitat Needs.” A total of 57 people attended the live webinar. Participants included 45% NRCS, 15% BLM, 15% USFS, 10% state, 10% other federal, and 5% non-profit. BCR also posted a link to the webinar on YouTube which has had 99 unique views and has been shared by 3 viewers. The webinar has also been shared by Idaho Fish and Game Department and IWJV. The webinar can be found with this link: https://youtu.be/_NDr42HFsRc?list=PLsuvgr-yGQydc9QtR6AEyTpv7OPmtq6cY.

Manual:

The manual has gone through several drafts with several authors contributing. While we did have great interest in creating a manual that would be useful to both landowner and resource professional, in the end, the manual is a bit more technical than we’ve been told landowners would have an interest in.

This guide is intended for conservation practitioners working in the sagebrush ecosystem in the eastern part of sagebrush range, including Colorado, Wyoming, western South Dakota, Montana and southeast Idaho, as some of the management tools described are only valid in those areas. Information in this guide is applicable on both public and private lands. This guide is not meant to take place of the local knowledge gained from long-term interactions with the land being managed. Management goals and objectives are usually very site specific and will be different under different environmental, political, social, and economic circumstances. Goals for management should be determined by site potential. 

The guide has five sections. The Introduction provides the justification of why it is important to consider all sagebrush obligate birds when planning for land management. The Sagebrush Ecosystem section gives general information about the ecosystem. This ecosystem is not just one expansive field of sagebrush; there are many microhabitats and different plant associations that make up the overall ecosystem that are each important to different species of birds. Understanding the ecological classification system used to describe those plant associations will be important for making informed management decisions. We provide general information about Major Land Resource Areas and ecological site descriptions, used by resource agencies to describe ecosystem dynamics and give reference for additional information sources. The section on Birds as Indicators will give the reader a  general understanding of the different components of habitat that are potentially important for the presence or absence of a bird species. The Conservation Actions section provides general management suggestions when a particular activity is occurring at a site. The Tools for Management Decisions section provides a more detailed description of several tools land managers can use to enhance decisions that foster a multi-species approach to conservation. Appendix A provides details for 20 bird species found within the sagebrush ecosystem. These details will give readers a better understanding of specific habitat requirements necessary for a species to be present and will give managers the knowledge they need to incorporate these requirements into land management decisions.

Version 1 of the manual has been completed (Integrating Birds into Sagebrush Managementv1). We will continue to refine this manual and incorporate the instructions for the web-based Decision Support Tool through the spring and summer 2016 with the NRCS CIG funds. Once complete we expect to print just over 2,000 copies.  Bird Conservancy will have a roll-out of both the DST and the manual. This will include a "How-to" webinar for the tool. We will disperse the manual via mail as well as at partner meetings and conferences.

Educational Materials:

Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology developed and made 500 “Voices of Sagebrush Birds” CD (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory_CD bifold) for Bird Conservancy. We’ve distributed about 350 of these at the workshops and other outreach opportunities and on-line requests.

 We continuously get requests for the "Pocket Guide to Sagebrush Birds" (Sage_cover) from both individuals as well as agencies. During the grant cycle we’ve dispersed approximately 5,700 guides.

One-on-one landowner visits:

Four BCR Sage-grouse Private Lands Wildlife Biologists (PLWB) have been reaching out to landowners and doing one-on-one landowner visits. During the grant cycle the PLWBs have done nearly 400 visits with different ranches to discuss potential habitat enhancement projects and assist them with applying for various conservation funding sources. Oftentimes, these visits are done in partnership with other agencies. The landowner visits are a great opportunity for resource professionals to share their expertise with each other and the landowners.

Partnerships/ Raising awareness:

Another venue for raising awareness is by attending meetings with partners and giving presentations at natural resource conferences. BCR’s Executive Director, Stewardship Director, Science Director, and Biometrician have all attended meetings and had conversations to build and maintain partnerships with various agencies and organizations for this project. Some examples of these meetings and presentations include:

Meetings:

• Sage Grouse Initiative partner meetings
• Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies meetings
• Wyoming Chapter of The Wildlife Society annual conference
• Intermountain West Joint Venture meetings
• Northern Great Plains Joint Venture meetings
• Executive Director visited with Assistant Chief of NRCS and Under Secretary Bonnie about the DST, the initiative and need for measures of success for the sagebrush obligate suite of birds in September in Washington, D.C.
• Executive Director visited with Audubon of the Rockies and World Wildlife Fund about the DST and modeling a similar effort in the grasslands.
• BCR has been conference calling with IWJV and other partners to develop a Sage Obligate Outreach Strategy that will raise awareness of managers about at-risk birds and their habitat requirements and communicate recent investments in planning tools and how to use them (see below).

Presentations:

• Pavlacky, D.C., Jr., J.A. Blakesley, and D.J. Hanni. August 2013. Hierarchical occupancy estimation to predict bird species distributions. American Ornithologists’ Union/ Cooper Ornithological Society: 2013, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
• North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference – Sage Grouse Executive Committee meeting in Washington, DC.
• Gallagher, S.W., D. Pavlacky, L. Quattrini, T. VerCauteren. BCR Conservation Efforts in the Sagebrush Steppe, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Summer meeting 2013, Omaha, NE (July 2013)
  5th International Partners in Flight Conference and Conservation Workshop at Snowbird, UT (August 2013)
• Pavlacky, D. C., Jr., D. J. Hanni, and S. Gallagher. September 2014. Integrating monitoring data and ecological site descriptions to achieve multi-species bird conservation in working landscapes. Annual meeting of American Ornithologists’ Union, Cooper Ornithological Society, and Society of Canadian Ornithologists. Estes Park, Colorado, USA
   

Rocky Mountain Avian Data Center:

While not included in our original SARE proposal, we believe the Avian Data Center (http://rmbo.org/v3/avian/home.aspx) can be an important tool for other resource professionals in learning more about avian species. It is the storing house for avian information collected by Bird Conservancy and our collaborators in the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Intermountain West. It is a “one-stop” data center for current data, results, methods, and materials produced and/or collected by Bird Conservancy and our collaborators. Much of this information is available to the public, land managers, and resource professionals. The goal is by sharing what we have learned it encourages others to join in bird and habitat conservation. It is another tool that resource professionals can use to learn about what research and monitoring projects Bird Conservancy and partners are doing and how it might relate to their areas of interest. During the cycle of the grant Bird Conservancy has given dozens of presentations to over 400 resource professionals.

Sage obligate tool mini-strategy:

As a result of the work done on this project, in discussions with partners, and with assistance from a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation contract, we have contracted out Ashley Anne Dayer, an affiliate of Intermountain West Joint Venture, to help develop a strategy for management tool dispersion for conservation partners working on the sagebrush ecosystem. Several spatial planning tools and management resources exist to identify beneficial conditions for sage obligate species, practices to improve these conditions, and best places to undertake sagebrush management activities to conserve the sagebrush ecosystem. The goals of the mini-strategy are to 1) raise the awareness of resource managers, other conservation partners, and to a lesser extent private landowners about at-risk sagebrush birds and their habitat requirements to help them better integrate sagebrush and sagebrush-steppe conservation measures into their land management actions, conservation programs, and habitat priorities, and 2) ensure resource managers and other partners are aware of tools and how to use them (e.g. Avian Knowledge Network, e-bird data/breeding bird data, HABPOPS, Bird Conservancy’s Decision Support Tool, & IWJV Sage Grouse Core Area Conservation Strategy-Potential Impact to Sagebrush Obligates). Ashley assisted Bird Conservancy compile descriptions of the tools for inclusion in our “Integrating Bird Conservation into Sagebrush Management” manual.